By Mary Beth SheridanPublished January 28th 2009 in The Washington Post

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer vowed yesterday to hold a vote
"in the very near future" on legislation that would give the District a
full voting seat in Congress.

"As majority leader, I tell you I
intend to bring that bill to the floor," Hoyer (D-Md.) told the House
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He
criticized Washington's status, saying the city is "the only capital in
the free world whose citizens do not have a voting member of their
parliament."

The hearing marked the first step in the bill's path
through Congress. It drew an overflow crowd to the wood-paneled room,
including the measure's sponsor, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.),
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and numerous activists -- one in a purple
colonial-style coat and a tricorn hat.

The bill is similar to
legislation that passed the House in 2007 but failed in the Senate. It
is designed to be nonpartisan by adding one House seat for the
overwhelmingly Democratic District and another for the next state
scheduled to pick up a seat according to the Census count. That is now
Utah, which leans Republican.

Proponents say the legislation has
its best chance yet of becoming law because of the expanded Democratic
majority and support from President Obama. But yesterday's hearing gave
a preview of the concerns that will be aired as the legislation moves
to the full Judiciary Committee.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R-Wis.) asked witnesses whether a decision by lawmakers to add a House
seat for the District could lead to a similar move in the Senate.
Republicans worry that a gain of two D.C. seats in the 100-seat Senate
would give Democrats a significant advantage.

Viet D. Dinh, a
former assistant U.S. attorney general in the Bush administration, said
that might not be possible because of different wording for
representatives and senators in the Constitution. But Jonathan Turley,
a professor at George Washington University Law School, said the
phrases are not that different.

Turley said he finds it
"incredibly offensive" that D.C. residents don't have a voting member
of Congress. But he called the bill "flagrantly unconstitutional." He
said the bill violates the constitutional provision that the House be
composed of representatives of states. The District is not a state, he
said.

Dinh said that provision had to be balanced against a
clause in the Constitution allowing Congress sweeping control over the
District.

"I do think the Supreme Court would uphold it," Dinh said, referring to the bill.

The
hearing's biggest surprise came when one of the most vociferous
opponents of the D.C. vote bill said he would introduce a bill this
week to exempt D.C. residents from paying federal taxes until they got
a vote in Congress.

"Taxation without representation -- that
slogan has made an impression on me," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.),
referring to the message on the city's license plates. He said he will
present separate legislation to return most of the District to Maryland
so it can have full representation in Congress.

Norton dismissed
the no-tax proposal, saying she had offered similar legislation in 2001
when her party was in the minority. "I got nowhere," she said.